From “M. Murphy” in the combox of this post:
Had this comment removed from The Remnant who had been cheering all the bishops, etc “resisting Francis to his face”
<Removed>
Okay I am going to say it…
I am Not in union with Bishops and Cardinals who refuse to submit to the one they believe to be the true Pope. This is what Luther and Henry VIII did!
I will however support every of them who will say they refuse to submit to this man because he’s a heretic, an apostate, an anti Pope!
A destroyer!
Catholics don’t keep silent on truth!
Catholics don’t ask valid Popes to resign!
Catholics don’t denigrate the Pope or Papacy!
Catholics don’t refuse submission to the Papacy!
Ecumenical Council Vatican I (1870),
“For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor…And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their [Popes] apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren.’”
St. Catherine of Siena please pray for us!
St. Bernard of Clairvaux please pray for us!
St. Robert Bellarmine please pray for us!
I stopped reading The Remnant and watching their videos a couple years ago. I used to be a big fan, and I wish them well but all the Fwancis-splaining got to be too embarrassing and intolerable. Same for the John Henry Weston show and same for Bishop Schneider’s speeches as of late. I have no patience nor taste for any of it. It reminds me of all the time I wasted getting involved in Republican politics, watching “conservatives” pretend to fight but ultimately making sure that RINOs candidates got elected to lose.
Well said, James. I agree completely and I did the same things myself. God bless.
That’s what you get from The Remnant, where they believe they might “unite the clones” without any unifying element (i.e., a P-O-P-E). Instead, according to them, you should unite by sending donations to Remnant and One Luther Five. You should unite around the “thought leadership” of Michael Matt, who inherited rightful traditionalism from Michael Davies and his father (who invented it).
That’s basically what they believe.
I think they subscribe to this premise: “It is impossible to know for certain that someone is a formal heretic unless the Church judges.”
To me it sound like a form of fideism. If you can be morally certain that someone spouts material heresies you can also be morally certain that someone is aware of what the Church teaches and denies it anyway. Absolute certainty is reserved for God, but moral certainty binds the conscience.
“Moral Certainty binds the conscience.” That’s exactly right. How is it these people don’t know that.
Bravo M Murphy! Stay strong!
Mark, would you refresh our memory on the person who had the goods on Bergoglio and is no longer with us?
M. Murphy, being blocked, having comments removed is a badge of honor. The insipid RnR position is not Catholic and destroys what it claims to protect. I’ve been blocked by many, like the gals at Les Femmes. Even though Mary Ann once said my passion was to be admired, I guess she could no longer take my comments pointing out how irrational the RnR, specifically the SSPX, position is. Sad that so many do not allow friendly debate on such important issues.
The VII religion is heretical and cannot be the Catholic Church. The great apostasy happened 6 decades ago.
I guess I don’t understand how that statement about “this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour” doesn’t apply to the grievous errors and scandals of Paul6 through B16.
It just seems like using a quote like this to justify PopeF being an antipope also opens the door wide to sedevacantism.
I think there is legitimate reasons to explain why PopeF is likely an antipope, but again the logic that errors can’t be found in the papacy would also depose the previous 4-5 popes.
Would appreciate some insight on this because all I am seeing whenever I try to research this is inconsistencies. Am literally not trolling, I am asking serious questions, and serious answers in charity would be really helpful.
You’re not wrong. I would start by saying that Vatican I came along at a time of incredible papal strength after 300 years of post-Trent rock solid orthodoxy. Before Trent, there are several examples of errors from popes and councils, going all the way back to Pope Liberius signing on to the Arian formula in the 4th century (he later renounced it). Do some research and you will see that the imperfections of the Conciliar popes need not lead you to 1958 Sedevacantism.
Makes you suspect they are entirely controlled opposition, just modernists who refuse submission to the papacy. They are paid to maintain the dialectical process and to distract. Look at what Francis did today! He’s way worse than Paul VI! So, you don’t ask the question, how did we get mass apostasy throughout almost the entire hierarchy? How was it achieved? Why were you instructed to say an abbreviated form of the St. Michael prayer? Why was this prophecy of Leo XIII in the longer form of the St. Michael prayer never explained to the faithful in the 20th century to any appreciable degree?: “These most crafty enemies (freemasonic modernists?) have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the Spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions (the Sacraments, every single one altered and reduced in their essential Form after VII?). In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety (note the past tense “have raised” – Freemasonry, led by Cardinal Rampolla?), with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.” So, was it really a surprise when John XXIII refused our Lady’s request to reveal the Third Secret of Fatima? In short, Trad Inc. doesn’t want you think long and hard about Mark’s post of September 19, 2023, Third Secret of Fatima: “The great apostasy in the Church begins at the top”
The simple fact is that any commentary based on not accounting for the correct base premise will turn out to be false.
It’s just like watching conservatives and Republicans talk about the upcoming election of Trump Vs. Joe Round 2, WITHOUT clearing up or considering the matter of whether the previous election was stolen or not.
If the election was stolen, but you presume it wasn’t, then ANY AND ALL ANALYSIS about how and what the general American public is thinking or will behave this time is FLAWED ON ITS FACE.
The same for “Russian Collusion,” “Epstein killing himself,” “Insurrection!”, “Assad’s gas”, “Invasion of Ukraine”, “Nord Stream 2”, “9/11” and a host of other blah-blabbity-blah-blah topics.
Starting with the WRONG PREMISE leads inevitably to MORE ERROR and the WRONG CONCLUSIONS! Why bother listening to you anymore until you recant and finally wake up?
But the icing on the cake is that as many suspect, The Remnant, LifeSite etc. all LIKELY DO BELIEVE that Francis isn’t the Pope, and that Barnhardt etc. are right. Some have even stated so apparently… But they aren’t committing to it in public for various pathetic excuses that they are doing so on behalf of the little fragile followers and potential converts out there. Their ‘Church Militant’ isn’t the least bit prepared for what actual war looks like. They expect no casualties. But their cowardice actually results in many many more than they realize. The Eastern Orthodox have already say that “Dialogue is now impossible.” The Protestant fundies are already dragging Catholics away by waving Fiducia in our faces. The Remnant et all continue to sit on their ass and worry and doing nothing. Their position is more accurately summed up as “Recognize, Resist and Relax.”
They like to say there’s nothing we can do. It’s the typical learned helplessness so typical of Americans sitting back watching their country go down the toilet by OBVIOUS MALICIOUS ACTIONS of their own “leaders” at home and abroad.
EVERY CHURCH CRISIS that occurred never had any obvious solutions or codes of canon law or regulations to solve it until the CRISIS HAPPENED, and men finally pulled up their pants to organize and get together and DEAL WITH IT!
They can disagree and take the opposing side of the argument if they must, but IGNORING IT is NOT the solution. This makes all their articles and videos worthless, utterly utterly worthless, and like you I don’t bother with them anymore either. God has hardened their hearts.
I owe a lot to the Remnant — back in 1974. But in the last few years, I find them predictable, boring, whiny. I am glad this commenter took them to task. They dumped me from their comment box (but did take me back — more than Church Militant would do) after I expressed serious doubts about the Akita “apparitions.” Do we have to agree on everything to communicate?
Kono, I say this with sincere charity… you were blocked by the Les Femmes site, and I think a few others too because you’re ALWAYS pushing your 1958 sedevacantism, even when the subject of the post has no correlation to that. It’s extremely rude and you’re not converting anyone. All commenters on comboxes are the guests of the site owners. You were asked repeatedly by Mary Ann to stop beating the dead horse and chose not to. She had every right to block you. Have you considered meeting up with fellow sedes and starting your own 1958 sede website? If not, give it some thought cause hijacking every topic on other people’s sites to beat the powdered dust corpse of Mr. Ed is really getting tired.
^^^THIS!^^^….a thousand times!
Excellent questions, Confused. I, too, wonder about Paul VI, JPII and B16. I attend a SSPX parish. Louie Verrechio is my north star in these matters. He is leaning Sede, but I believe attends the Latin Mass at a Non-Sede parish. I may be wrong.
Very helpful, Mark!
“I am Not in union with Bishops and Cardinals who refuse to submit to the one they believe to be the true Pope. This is what Luther and Henry VIII did!
“Catholics don’t ask valid Popes to resign!
“Catholics don’t denigrate the Pope or Papacy!
“Catholics don’t refuse submission to the Papacy!”
Pretermitting the issue about whether Francis is a lawful pope, I don’t understand why people make the above claims. The history of the Church is replete with examples of Catholics refusing to submit to reigning popes when the popes were doing something wrong. Why can’t we do that, when our Catholic ancestors did it? Is there something wrong with it? Just trying to get an idea of why people think that that’s not possible.
Mary Ann is the “Oracle of Woodstock”….she believes Francis is pope but she retains final authority on what Catholics should actually believe. Typical R&R.
It depends. There are matters that a Pope has no authority over you, and there are matters where the Pope absolutely does have authority over you.
In the past, many points of opposition by faithful Catholics were usually over political matters, theological opinions, or where there was no certainty until something was defined and understood, or where one may have doubted the identity of the Pope where there were several claimants.
What any Pope certainly CANNOT DO is encourage or tell you to commit obvious and deliberate sin, or deny anything the Church has ever dogmatically or Traditionally and consistently taught. This is where we certainly are now.
Thank you for your charitable rebuke Andrew. I do concede to being over zealous too often. In my defense though, I’d rather be accused of being over zealous, even annoying than lukewarm. Seeing as I firmly believe that ’58 SVism is the truth, it’s hard for me not to share it with those whom I’ve learned to really like on these threads.
May the truth be perfectly clear to all of us soon; including myself.
God bless and Mary keep us all
If he’s a legitimate pope, you should submit to his teaching authority. That’s the problem with the Oracle of Woodstock in particular and the R&R in general. Bergoglio “is definitely pope” but they reserve the right to override him. Some go so far as wanting to revoke Vatican I. How is any of this Catholic?
Studying the RnR position, specifically the SSPX, is exactly what led me to sedevacantism. RnR has been going on A LOT longer than Bergoglio. How does one denounce the position as it relates to Bergoglio, but not to P6, JP2 and B16? There’s contradiction in that.
Why is it okay when Bishop Sanborn practices RnR with regards to Pius XII changing Holy Week and other changes to the pre-55? He recognizes Pius XII as a valid pope, yet refuses these changes. How does that work?
Good point, Mark. It is what happens when there is no pope. People pick and choose, sometimes correctly, sometimes not.
It was researching the post ’58 “popes” that convinced me, especially the completely Modernist Ratzinger, portrayed as traditional and orthodox when he was responsible for engineering V2 and Bergoglio. There’ve been weak popes, and bad popes, but not combined with a Great Apostasy of the hierarchy, and a groomed generation “worthy of the reign” of freemasonic popes, poorly catechized and nondiscerning. It was an engineered perfect storm of a revolution, with ongoing psyops, and annointed Tradsperts to keep the Faithful confused and under the V2 church umbrella. They use double binds, ie: Bergoglio will do something blasphemous/evil, like Fiducia, then lecture about the dangers of lust, giving the popesplainers a wedge to “interpret” him, and what he REALLY means….meanwhile the PRACTICE is acceptance and celebration of homosex by the APPARENT Catholic Church. Ratzinger’s motu proprio on the TLM was akin to Abp. Lefebvre’s suggesting to Montini that diocese dedicate one church for a TLM community….all a subterfuge to keep people in communion with a false church. It’s all about stealing souls.
Mark,
I am disturbed by this comment. Seriously. Vatican I, and numerous other acts of the Church’s Magisterium, outline and teach that the Church, through Her Ordinary AND Extraordinary Magesterium, is preserved from teaching error on faith and morals (there is a distinction to be made: infallibility has different grades, from “de Fidei” and “Divinely Revealed” to “not wrong”; The Magisterium is, at the least trustworthy, able to be believed without danger of being led astray). Pope Pius IX called the Vatican Council of 1870 to settle the matter of the Church’s authority on matters of Faith and Morals, in opposition to the cynicism of the post-Enlightenment era. When it solemnly teaches that the See of Peter has not taught error, and CANNOT teach error, She is not wrong. What good is the Magisterium if we cannot trust it, if it can teach error? What is the point? We become like Protestants, having to shift through Magistrial statements to determine their orthodoxy. Numerous popes have stated that the ENTIRE POINT of the Magisterium is to clearly present the Faith to the faithful SO THEY DON’T HAVE TO BE THE JUDGE. If we have had acts of the Magisterium that teach error, like you propose, then “to whom do we turn?” I left the Protestant heresy because I realized that Christ gave us a mechanism to know the Truth: the Magisterium. You are insinuating that we cannot completely trust it.
Further, to insinuate that the Council Fathers of Vatican I DID NOT INVESTIGATE CLAIMS OF PAPAL ERROR is an offense against the good name of those bishops. They did. I have read the work of some of the researchers. They put all modern “scholars” to shame. They presented ALL the evidence to either side, because the bishops refused to promulgate a teaching that was not supported by history. And yet…they state that the See of Peter has been preserved from error, and WILL BE preserved from error. Obviously, they did not believe that the See of Peter has taught error, or could teach error.
Aaron, in the interest of time, I suggest you start with Haec Sancta,proclaimed by the Council of Constance in 1415, and promulgated by three successive valid popes. The document declares in favor of Conciliarism. It was not reversed and declared heresy for a hundred years. A good article can be found here: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/07/haec-sancta-1415-conciliar-document.html
Assisi was not just an error. It was a middle finger lifted up to God Almighty by a supposed, Divinely Protected pope and a blasphemous sin of the First Commandment.
Well said and feel the same way.
“Seeing as I firmly believe that ’58 SVism is the truth, it’s hard for me not to share it with those whom I’ve learned to really like on these threads”
There’s a difference between sharing what you think is the truth and continually shoving it down people’s throats when they’ve made their position clear. That’s why you were kicked off the Les Femmes site. Mary Ann and Susan were very patient with you and respectfully asked you time and time again to please respect their refusal to convert to your position on 1958 sedevacantism. Rather than do that, and act like a civilized guest on their combox, you hijacked pretty much every topic there (just like here) using their space to push your own personal opinions. And just like a house guest who disrespects the hospitality of the house owner, you were shown the door and rightfully so.
From what I can see, you’re not converting anyone over to your side of the fence and even if you had convincing arguments, this non-stop nagging torpedos your efforts.
To build upon this Aaron, consider the fact that despite Haec Sancta being wrong, no souls were ever going to be damned or led astray into sin for mistakenly believing or following Haec Sancta.
God does not expect laypeople to be scholars or experts of all the complications of Catholic reality. Vatican II arguably is of the same character, admittedly susceptible to even more errors than Constance.
The promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass may be evil by the intent of its architects to replace and suppress the Traditional Rite, but by itself it doesn’t lead souls to damnation or to committing sin, even if the graces from it can be demonstrated to be lacking, or that it fails to conform souls to Catholic Truth, and rather makes them susceptible to eroding it. But individual souls are not damned by virtue of its strict attendance.
If it is harmful and destructive, it is in the same way as that of an issue with poor instruction in Catholic Schools. Which at one point never existed, then did exist, and presently probably does more harm than good. It may be insufficient in its nature, a downgrade in quality from what was before, even prone to confusion, but does not of itself betray the willingness to deliberately harm souls.
But telling individual souls that they can receive Communion in a State of Sin, especially scandalous unrepentant public sin… will DAMN them, REGARDLESS of whether they received the Eucharist in a Tridentine Rite or a Novus Ordo rite. That is what Amoris Letitia does.
Then there is Fiducia Supplicans, which contradicts itself between its words and its actions. It claims that it does not bless the homosexuality, while in character and action publicly acknowledges that the object of the blessing is in a state of unrepentant sin yet blesses the object precisely because it is defined by its state of unrepentant sin. Which is a bit like saying that the fact that the U.S. Government is jailing, torturing or executing American citizens without due process under this particular circumstance under this promulgated executive order or act, does not mean the U.S. Government is rewriting or negating the U.S. Constitution to get rid of the right to due process, which still exists. But the reason the Constitution declared this in the first place is precisely to prevent the U.S. Government from doing what they did under ANY circumstance.
Even if we were to continue splitting hairs over the erroneous nature of Fiducia, and every other document of recent time, what it is helpful in doing is giving us a sure picture of the nature of its architects. That they are mired in sin themselves, and looking to justify it, and are at the very least leaning towards apostasy if not full-blown apostates. And what especially betrays them is not the document by itself, but their absolute stubborn character of REFUSAL to clarify what they have written. Which means that the confusion and the error that can be drawn from it is INTENDED on their part!
We cannot draw that conclusion from those at the Council of Constance. Arguably the same for Vatican II, where we cannot reasonably ascertain that there was a character throughout the council of the intent to deliberately spread error (that a few stand-out cardinals definitely did intend to, does not condemn the whole college) unlike with Amoris Letitia and Fiducia, where it is directly tied to specific authors, who publicly state that they are deliberately going against Catholicism, and their own documents betray that they know what they are doing is against Catholicism, because they go to great lengths to convince us with great legalese that the contradictory actions contained therein should not be taken by us as going against Catholicism, and when called upon to rewrite it with clarity or to withdraw it if it cannot be done, they REFUSE! DOUBLE DOWN! Then punish those who seek to do what the Church has always done, while encouraging those who not only do as they stated according to the document, but even praise those who go BEYOND the scope of the document into even greater scandal! Like one “EssJay” Martin.
These actions of theirs are public, open, obvious and therefore can be judged.
I agree with you Mark. I don’t like some of H.E.’s decisions …that changes nothing though about the truth of SVism. In fact, it points to the truth of decades SVism. No pope to unify and guide us.
^^^THIS!!!!^^^….two thousand times!
Great comment Johnno!
I take it that you believe Bergoglio is an anti-pope but that the other post-Conciliar popes were flawed but didn’t rise to that level(?).
Bravo Aaron. Bravo. As a baptized Catholic who never learned the faith, then did the Protestant thing for a few years, authority was the number two reason for my reversion…..after learning about the Eucharist. It makes zero sense to me to believe the Church can and has erred in faith and morals. The apostasy that happened at the signing of the heretical VII documents is exactly why upwards of 98% of Catholics worldwide today do not hold the Catholic faith whole and entire. How Satan must love the destruction of the papacy to make the post conciliar “popes” popes. Just look at the state of the world today. What caused it? Lack of graces from so very few valid priests offering valid Masses. One needn’t be a theologian to understand.
Kono, and yet you’ve failed to research and report back on the MANY examples before the reforms of Trent where the Church did indeed teach error, only to correct itself decades later. Why won’t you do this simple research? Do you need me to send you the examples again?
kono, you keep saying you don’t need to be a theologian or know theology to figure out the root of the apostasy, but you insist that Vatican II taught heresy and that the new mass is invalid. I implore you to use your free time to learn traditional Catholic theology and then examine if your position is Catholic. I don’t say this just to look down at you or justify how smart I am, but because I think you are in schism, if not in material heresy (which you might be if you deny the Catholic position on indefectability). Because it seems like you are saying that you figured this out, while so many theologians couldn’t and fell into apostasy in the sixties, as though knowing theology is irrelevant to finding the right answer in these confusing times.
I used to be an atheist. It wasn’t until I started doubting everything I was sure was true that I found Christ. Many people don’t accept that reality can contradict their deepest convictions, so they assume that what they believe is the way the world really is. I am not saying that no one should have strong convictions, but people should have the mentality that they could be wrong, even though they don’t believe they are wrong. Like, say, when Mark posts counterexamples to sedevacantism you don’t engage with them at all.
I have looked a little into what you suggested Mark. What I’ve found didn’t sound definitive, nor convincing. And I don’t know if the sources putting it out there are reliable. I’m sticking with Trent and the Church and what She claims of Herself and of course Christ’s Promise. In my opinion those hold much more weight than trying to find something that destroys the essence of the papacy and therefore the Church. The evidence is overwhelming that the VII religion is not Catholic….decades of RnR point to this truth. Catholics simply do not resist a true pope and his magisterium. AND VII officially promotes salvation outside the Church, so even if sedes are wrong, we’re good.
My question though had to do with the statements made above:
“I am Not in union with Bishops and Cardinals who refuse to submit to the one they believe to be the true Pope. This is what Luther and Henry VIII did!
“Catholics don’t ask valid Popes to resign!
“Catholics don’t denigrate the Pope or Papacy!
“Catholics don’t refuse submission to the Papacy!”
We have historical precedents demonstrating that Catholics in the past have done the very things that are alleged above that Catholics don’t do.
For instance, when the immoral teenager Octavius was elected pope in AD 955 (John XII), not only did Catholics seek his resignation, they actually deposed him. To say that the Catholics at the time did not denigrate John, would not be speaking the truth. He was quite immoral, and lots of people had lots of things to say about that. Sergius III is another example of someone who was deposed, and of course it was done by Catholics.
When Stephen VI (VII) held the infamous “Cadaver Synod” and proclaimed Pope Formosus (who had at one time been defrocked) to be an antipope, there were plenty of Catholics who recognized Stephen as a true pope but resisted him. Same thing for Sergius III, who demanded the reordination of priests and bishops who were ordained/consecrated by Formosus. Many resisted Sergius and refused his orders, even though they accepted Sergius as a valid pope. The French priest Auxilius was a main opponent.
There are more than a few anomalies in the history of the papacy. There is the instance of Boniface VI, who people accepted as a true pope (even though he was a defrocked priest at the time of his election), but Pope John IX later declared the election of Boniface to be null and void. There is at least one antipope who people later just kind of accepted as a valid pope because he was in place, and there have been entries in the Liber Pontificalis where men were listed as valid popes but then, in later editions, they are listed as antipopes. The Church has never clarified their status.
In any event, I recognize the sentiments behind the above statements, but historically I don’t think they can be justified. Our Catholic ancestors did the very things M. Murphy stated cannot be done, and oftentimes they were right in doing those things. There were lots of times in our sacred history that people recognized a person as a valid pope but resisted him and refused his orders. The above are some examples. There are many more.
Mark, have patience with me on this. Maybe it was lost in the translation of Professor DeMattei, but the interpretation that the heresy of Conciliarism was ratified by three successive valid pope appears to me anyway to be a real stretch.
First Pope : “Martin V, elected Pope at Constance in 1417, in the Bull Inter cunctas of February 22nd 1418, recognized the ecumenicity of the Council of Constance and all of its decisions, albeit with the generically restrictive formula: “in favorem fidei et salutem animarum”. We do not know whether the Pope had shared, at least in part, the conciliarist theories or perhaps was obliged to take this stance under pressure from the cardinals who had elected him.”
Second Pope: Eugenio IV “backtracks” and ratifies HS in 1433. “In the decree of September 4th 1439, Eugene IV states that the superiority of Councils over the Pope, asserted by the Basel Fathers on the basis of Haec Sancta, is “a bad interpretation given by the Basel Fathers themselves, which de facto is revealed as contrary to the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures, of the Holy Fathers, and of the Council of Constance itself.” (Decreto del 4 settembre 1439, in Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, EDB, Bologna 2002. p. 533). Eugenio IV himself, ratified the Council of Constance as a whole and in its decrees, excluded: “any prejudice to the rights, dignity and pre-eminence of the Apostolic See” as he writes to his legate on July 22nd 1446.
How was the heresy of Constance “not reversed and declared heresy for a hundred years” when we we have no idea or record if Martin V was aware of or shared conciliarist theories? Was it not substantially confronted when Eugenio IV decrees in 1439 the “bad interpretation” of the Basel Fathers and states that superiority of Councils over the Pope is contrary to the Council of Constance itself? How again in 1446 does Eugenio IV ratify the Council but clearly excludes specifically “any prejudice to the rights, dignity and pre-eminence of the Apostolic See” Finally, who is the Third Pope?
Anastagi, are you not seeing the forest for the trees? Conciliarism is an outrageous heresy, contrary to the intrinsic nature of the Church in direct opposition to the way Christ instituted it. The council went on to promulgate “Frequens” two years later, intending to force all subsequent popes to hold a council every ten years in order to govern the Church. Did you do any research beyond the one article I sent as a starting point? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequens
I did. I found the following in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia under the entry for Pope Martin V: “The tendency which some of the cardinals had manifested at the Council of Constance to substitute constitutional for monarchial government in the Church and to make the pope subject to a General Council, was firmly and successfully opposed by Martin V.”
You appear to believe that popes in fact ratified, confirmed, accepted and approved the conciliarist decrees of the council of Constance. You sited Professor De Mattei as an authority for this position. It would seem a not insignificant number of Church Historians disagree with that. Here are several historians who contest his De Mattei’s assertion: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/04/council-of-constance-1414-18-triumph-or-death-of-conciliarism.html
sorry…THIS is where I meant to insert “^^^THIS!^^^ two thousand times!”….my computer had other ideas 🙁
Edison –
I currently accept the conciliar popes, but I also acknowledge the many serious reservations against them. If the classical-sedes can prove that any of them were formal obstinate heretics, I’m open to hearing it. In fact, it wouldn’t even surprise me. But material heresy by itself doesn’t meet the standard, as it would undo a lot more of Church history and many Papacies of the past than they’d imagine.
DJR –
When many say “Catholics don’t refuse submission to the Papacy!” they obviously mean it within the narrowly defined authority of what a Pope is absolutely authorized to do – binding the Church to administer and teach matters of the Catholic faith in a certain way. Also as a superior who runs the organizational structure.
A Pope can assign Tucho to a position of authority. Even illicitly. And we are obligated to submit to it, even if we may raise concerns and petition him not to. But once Tucho teaches heresy, and the Pope signs off on it, then both Tucho and he are suspect of said heresy. We refuse submission with regards to the promulgation of heresy. NOT about the right to appoint Tucho to a position of authority, although that action may be used as circumstantial evidence against a suspect-Pope as to his heretical intentions.
Many of the examples you raised don’t directly concern matters that lead Catholics to deny or act in ways contrary to the faith. Even in the cases of following an Anti-Pope, as many Anti-Popes of the past did not teach error, and held the Catholic faith.
A Pope may render opinions on civil and secular matters outside of the faith, about which side to take in an Israeli/Palestinian conflict, about whether you should drive a gas or electric car, or a country’s policies on immigration. And indeed there are many Catholic doctrines that come into play about a lot of these dilemmas, and in practice any Catholic ought to seriously consider a Pope’s advice on any of these matters. But because Catholic teaching is intentionally entirely vague about what specific sides to take, and when there is no demonstrable scientific proof, or there is obvious contention about the facts in a war, and when picking any side or no side does not lead anyone to sin (siding with Israel or Palestine or no-one doesn’t mean you are sinning, driving a gas or electric car doesn’t mean you are sinning, limiting or relaxing immigration law doesn’t mean you are sinning), then you are free to agree or disagree with the Pope, and reject his advice or his intentions after due consideration.
Even if the Pope is using armies and organizations under his authority to work against your interests in a conflict, or policy-making, or what you drive, you can resist him, because your decision to do otherwise than what he asks is something that is NOT a sin in any of God’s laws or morality as taught by the Church, nor is it in opposition to articles of the Catholic faith that define things like the nature of the Trinity, the virginity of Mary, or the divine nature of Christ etc. If the Pope tries to insist that his opinions on such secular affairs are actually of these Catholic categories, then he is obligated to logically explain and demonstrate it. If he cannot, he logically cannot bind you to do anything.
As another attempt to get sede readers to realize that Vatican II developed doctrine, not contradicted it, here is a theologian tracing the development of “no salvation outside the Church” over the centuries:
https://windowlight.substack.com/p/salvation-outside-the-church-the
The easiest way to see this is that in one paragraph Pius IX says that invincibly ignorant non-Catholics can be saved, and then in the next paragraph says that there is no salvation outside the Church. The first question that comes to mind is whether these invincibly ignorant non-Catholics are in the Church or not?
Either he was a heretic, did not understand the meaning of the words he wrote, or some people are incorporated in the Church even though they are not Catholic.
For starters, you are going to need to rebut the following in great detail if you plan on getting “sede readers to realize that Vatican II developed doctrine, not contradicted it”, best of luck:
https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Triple-Column-Ecclesiology.pdf
If non-Catholics who are invincibly ignorant are part of the Church (and how can they be saved if they are not?) partial communion and subsists in is correct, because there are non-Catholics in the Church. If it is incorrect, was Pius IX an invalid pope, since his teachings imply them?
“7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.”[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: “If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;”[5] “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;”[6] “He who does not believe will be condemned;”[7] “He who does not believe is already condemned;”[8] “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are “perverted and self-condemned;”[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them “false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”[11]
I mean what do you suppose he meant? Was he adding exceptions to “no salvation outside the Church”?
I’m just doing it to atone for scandalizing people. The Warning will be scary not only for me but for people who continuously diss true popes who taught that Vatican II did not teach heresy.
If Piux IX teachings do imply Vatican II ecclesiology, then they were not heretical. And if they are heretical, then he was a heretic. And if he was a heretic, and hence not the pope, it makes Vatican I and the syllabus of errors suspect, undermining traditionalist claims.
My opinion is that every doctrinal traditionalist accepts what SSPX said about Vatican II ecclesiology without critically examining it. Every claim that they are heretic starts with the assumption that Vatican II taught errors. If Vatican II ruptures with the preconcillior Church, why can we see the seeds of growth for that Vatican II taught in the preconcilliar Church?
I don’t see how Benedict could be pope if the hermenuetic of continuity is a false claim. That does touch on matters of faith and morals, even if is not ex cathedra.